Welcome to City-Data.com Forum!
U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > U.S. Forums > Connecticut
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 03-19-2014, 02:15 PM
 
Location: New London County, CT
8,949 posts, read 12,131,290 times
Reputation: 5145

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by Sigequinox View Post
FACTS, STUDIES, EMPIRICAL DATA
You can't scream about this and then cherry pick the empirical data that you want to believe or consider...

Study: States with more gun laws have less gun violence
Firearm availability and unintentional firearm deat... [J Trauma. 2002] - PubMed - NCBI

I can go on... But you get the point...
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 03-19-2014, 02:18 PM
 
363 posts, read 635,000 times
Reputation: 268
Quote:
Originally Posted by mlassoff View Post
I haven't met anyone who's anti second amendment. This is a disingenuous argument, as I'm sure you're already aware.

I'm sure you could find some freaks who want to take away some guns, just like you could find some who want mandatory gun ownership or to be able to possess their own nuclear armaments.

Most reasonable people believe there is a right to bear arms. The debate is simply over where the line is drawn over what arms you can own personally. There have been restrictions throughout the modern era... You can't own hand grenades or a howitzer as a private citizen.

I think that registration of assault weapons is a completely reasonable restriction. Others don't. It's disingenuous to say that makes me-- or anyone else-- "anti 2A" or that I want to "take all the guns". You're just feeding in to the false rhetoric that inflames the fringe a lá Fox News and the NRA.

I also believe that once a law is passed the responsible thing to do is follow it-- whether you agree with or not. We have a system for challenging and changing law in this country. Responsible people do that.
I've run into several anti-2A people that think police and military are the only people allowed to bear arms. Look at that loser Piers Morgan! I'm actually okay with registration but the criminals in Hartford banned us from buying these "evil" looking rifles after last April. That I'm not okay with.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-19-2014, 02:26 PM
 
Location: New London County, CT
8,949 posts, read 12,131,290 times
Reputation: 5145
Quote:
Originally Posted by FILF View Post
I've run into several anti-2A people that think police and military are the only people allowed to bear arms. Look at that loser Piers Morgan! I'm actually okay with registration but the criminals in Hartford banned us from buying these "evil" looking rifles after last April. That I'm not okay with.
And that's fine. I don't think that's an unreasonable opinion, but just like you don't want to be painted with same brush as the lunatic fringe in your party, neither do I. Pretending that the majority of liberals are anti-second amendment is just untrue... We could have better discussion if people didn't attribute false positions to those on the other side of the debate.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-19-2014, 02:42 PM
 
Location: CT
2,122 posts, read 2,419,778 times
Reputation: 1675
Quote:
Originally Posted by mlassoff View Post
You can't scream about this and then cherry pick the empirical data that you want to believe or consider...

Study: States with more gun laws have less gun violence
Firearm availability and unintentional firearm deat... [J Trauma. 2002] - PubMed - NCBI

I can go on... But you get the point...
The first study uses sources from the Brady Campaign which is the NRA of gun hate. I'm hesitant to accept non bias there.

All the second study is claiming is that there is an increase in gun related homicides and suicides where guns are more available. Startling. It's like performing a study that concludes more people die in luxury sports car accidents in Dubai than anywhere else in the nation. It doesn't tell you anything about cause, it doesn't tell you anything about overall murder, and it most certainly tells you nothing about AW's. Chicago has the strictest gun control yet huge number of homicides. Well, memphis has like, no gun control and also plenty of homicides. comparing cities with strict vs lax gun laws shows you that gun control is pretty much a wash (which is what the recent CDC study showed). It didn't say "more guns = less crime" or anything like that, it just stated simply that further gun control will not have an impact on public safety. The 2nd reference also uses suicide which is also useless in terms of public safety.

Sorry if you feel I'm accusing you of being "anti 2nd amendment". We will call it, anti AW? This is your state to, you pay taxes just like I do and I'm not trying to dismiss your opinion, I just know that it's impossible to know everything about all issues that concern you and am trying to provide information you won't read in the Hartford Courant. Those comments were meant to apply to the political system, not a particular person on here. I know plenty of liberal gun owners.

I would be surprised if you even knew what the law was and what any of it means. Do you know what the difference is between a muzzle break, flash suppressor, sound suppressor? Do you know what a barrel shroud is? a telescoping stock? a VFG? or any of the other ridiculous things that make a gun an "AW"? You would be surprised to find out they do nothing to add to the lethality of a gun, but actually make it safer to operate.

Registration might sound reasonable from whatever unrealistic perspective the generally anti gun media presents it, but do you REALLY think it would have stopped the events that spawned its existence?

Also very important to keep in mind, is that even if you read a study that said guns are horrible and account for 90% of all crime blah blah blah. AWs, the real issue hear, would account for less than 1% of that. So not being against the second amendment but being against AWs just smells fishy to many.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-19-2014, 02:52 PM
 
Location: New London County, CT
8,949 posts, read 12,131,290 times
Reputation: 5145
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sigequinox View Post
The first study uses sources from the Brady Campaign which is the NRA of gun hate. I'm hesitant to accept non bias there.
Right.. The studies that support your position are perfect, the ones that support the opposite position are biased? Got ya.

The first study was by Boston Children's Hospital-- who I assume's first focus would be the health and well being of children. It was reported on by USA Today... not exactly a liberal rag....

You screamed about empirical studies in the last post... These are empirical studies... But now you want to cherry pick. I guess that's permitted in the right-wing derp bubble.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Sigequinox View Post
All the second study is claiming is that there is an increase in gun related homicides and suicides where guns are more available. Startling. It's like performing a study that concludes more people die in luxury sports car accidents in Dubai than anywhere else in the nation. It doesn't tell you anything about cause, it doesn't tell you anything about overall murder, and it most certainly tells you nothing about AW's. Chicago has the strictest gun control yet huge number of homicides. Well, memphis has like, no gun control and also plenty of homicides. comparing cities with strict vs lax gun laws shows you that gun control is pretty much a wash (which is what the recent CDC study showed). It didn't say "more guns = less crime" or anything like that, it just stated simply that further gun control will not have an impact on public safety. The 2nd reference also uses suicide which is also useless in terms of public safety.
Again, you choose to ignore empirical data that doesn't advance your position... Furthermore, I think that non-criminal related deaths-- suicides, accidents-- are tragic too and part of the picture. (I know, I know, doesn't advance your cause...). This study says "More guns = More gun deaths" not "More guns = More children protected from home invasions (or government tyranny) and I find that to be significant...

From the study abstract:
Quote:
A statistically significant association exists between gun availability and the rates of unintentional firearm deaths, homicides, and suicides. The elevated rates of suicide and homicide among children living in states with more guns is not entirely explained by a state's poverty, education, or urbanization and is driven by lethal firearm violence, not by lethal non-firearm violence.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-19-2014, 02:56 PM
 
442 posts, read 455,489 times
Reputation: 302
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bideshi View Post
Maybe the ones you know are all in the 10% that are willing to be enslaved.
Hmm. I fail to understand your Schlussfolgerung, but hey, I'll take the bait.

In a democratic society, how is following the law equivalent with being enslaved? Please elaborate.

Where do you get your 10% statistic from?

El.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-19-2014, 03:05 PM
 
415 posts, read 764,177 times
Reputation: 547
[quote=Lalalally;33885307]This is one of the articles I read. No, NBC news did not post a PDF image of the actual letter, but I kinda take them at their word. State Urges Gun Owners to Turn in Unregistered Weapons | NBC Connecticut[/QUOT

I read what you posted, made me wonder if these letter's we sent registered mail ?? be cause if it wasn't and I was them, I would go with i never got it, prove i got one..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-19-2014, 03:10 PM
 
Location: CT
2,122 posts, read 2,419,778 times
Reputation: 1675
Quote:
Originally Posted by mlassoff View Post
Right.. The studies that support your position are perfect, the ones that support the opposite position are biased? Got ya.

The first study was by Boston Children's Hospital-- who I assume's first focus would be the health and well being of children. It was reported on by USA Today... not exactly a liberal rag....

You screamed about empirical studies in the last post... These are empirical studies... But now you want to cherry pick. I guess that's permitted in the right-wing derp bubble.



Again, you choose to ignore empirical data that doesn't advance your position... Furthermore, I think that non-criminal related deaths-- suicides, accidents-- are tragic too and part of the picture. (I know, I know, doesn't advance your cause...). This study says "More guns = More gun deaths" not "More guns = More children protected from home invasions (or government tyranny) and I find that to be significant...

From the study abstract:
So you would be on board with a study done by Hospital X that sources it's data from the NRA? Cool. Ill go find a study and then accuse you of cherry picking when you call it BS...

You seriously think that suicides should impact the law? So, the guy down the street offs himself and that's somehow MY fault? You know almost 50% og gun deaths are suicide, right?I should be okay with the data used including the 50% of people that took their own life? That's outrageous and beyond misleading. The next thing you know your going to tell me MAIG's list with dead terrorists from a police shoot out is viable data. come on.

Vetting is not "cherry picking". Of course you want suicide involved because it advances YOUR cause. Ultimately, there needs to be an ethical line drawn about what type of behavior warrants punishing the entire population. I draw the line at someone taking their life which harms no one but them selves. You don't.

How many people and precious angel children does alcohol need to kill before you start going on tirades against that? Oh, what's the matter, you drink and that would affect YOUR life so its not important to you?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-19-2014, 03:13 PM
 
415 posts, read 764,177 times
Reputation: 547
Quote:
Originally Posted by El Scorcho View Post
Hmm. I fail to understand your Schlussfolgerung, but hey, I'll take the bait.

In a democratic society, how is following the law equivalent with being enslaved? Please elaborate.

Where do you get your 10% statistic from?

El.
Just because it's a law does not make it right .... If they make a law tomorrow = All first born must be Euthanize, Im not going along with it, ya but it's the law....

Just because we go to war with a Country and win'''' doesn't mean we are right, we are the winners there for we must be right... It's a USA mentality thing...
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-19-2014, 03:26 PM
 
Location: New London County, CT
8,949 posts, read 12,131,290 times
Reputation: 5145
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sigequinox View Post
So you would be on board with a study done by Hospital X that sources it's data from the NRA? Cool. Ill go find a study and then accuse you of cherry picking when you call it BS...
You're the one who was screaming that we should all pay attention to the empirical data... Why don't you like my empirical data? Good luck finding a hospital study that uses data from the NRA, btw.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Sigequinox View Post
You seriously think that suicides should impact the law? So, the guy down the street offs himself and that's somehow MY fault?
Huh? Who said it's your fault? Why do you personalize this? You're all about empirical data, right? If availability of guns impacts the number of teen suicides, I'd like to know that, yes. I'd like to discuss it in light of mental health needs, gun availability, gun safety and training and gun legislation. Why are you defensive on this? Should we just ignore suicide as an issue?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Sigequinox View Post
You know almost 50% og gun deaths are suicide, right?
More evidence to my above point....

Quote:
Originally Posted by Sigequinox View Post
Vetting is not "cherry picking".
It is when you start with the conclusion and work backwards. What type of "vetting" did you do with the original empirical data you were trumpeting? Let's face it-- you're trying to undermine study's that have conclusions you don't like, and disregard tertiary issues, like suicide and gun accidents, that don't enhance your position...

That's not very empirical. That's emotional.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Sigequinox View Post
How many people and precious angel children does alcohol need to kill before you start going on tirades against that? Oh, what's the matter, you drink and that would affect YOUR life so its not important to you?
I actually don't drink. I do care about any unnecessary death-- Child or adult. The better question, might be, why don't you?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:


Settings
X
Data:
Loading data...
Based on 2000-2020 data
Loading data...

123
Hide US histogram


Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > U.S. Forums > Connecticut

All times are GMT -6. The time now is 07:00 AM.

© 2005-2024, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Contact Us - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37 - Top